I
recently took a college course in the history of philosophy. The instructor,
who happens to be an extremely intelligent woman, was going to examine
Foucault. I was eager to study Foucault and seized the opportunity.
His Marxist proclivities aside, Foucault�s views concerning the carceral
system were certainly of merit and valuable to my research. Yet, there
was another philosopher on the menu. In the halls of orthodox academia,
his reputation precedes him. His name is Friedrich Nietzsche. I prepared
myself for what was guaranteed to be yet another exercise in anti-Christian
rhetoric.

Enraptured
by his vitriolic hatred for Christianity and enshrinement of moral
anarchism, academia has consistently defended Friedrich Nietzsche
as one of history�s �misunderstood� philosophers. Cribbing from the
standard litany of apologetics, many argue that Hitler somehow �misrepresented�
or �distorted� Nietzsche�s ideas. Is this genuinely the case? Of course,
during their migration from abstraction to tangible enactment, ideas
can become contaminated by any number of factors. To be sure, internal
contention amongst adherents, the personal idiosyncrasies of individual
analysts, and the manifestly unpredictable nature of reality itself
makes an idea�s journey towards tangible enactment very problematic.

Yet,
was Nietzscheism�s journey toward tangible enactment so bastardized
by Hitler that it was virtually unrecognizable? Was Nazism nothing
like what Nietzsche had in the mind? Again, only an examination of
the delicate segues between abstraction and tangible enactment can
answer this question. In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,
William Shirer recounts Hitler�s frequent sojourns to the Nietzsche
museum in Weimar (100). Commenting on Hitler�s veneration for Nietzsche,
Shirer writes:

There
was some ground for this appropriation of Nietzsche as one of the
originators of the Nazi Weltanschauung. Had not the philosopher
thundered against democracy and parliaments, preached the will to
power, praised war and proclaimed the coming of the master race
and the superman--and in the most telling aphorisms? (100)

Indeed,
the commonalities are numerous. Perhaps the most damning of these
was Nietzsche�s adoration for �the magnificent blonde brute, avidly
rampant for spoil and victory� (Shirer 100). While Nietzsche also
referred to the �masters� (i.e., noble men, rulers, etc.) as �blond
beasts,� this �blond brute� was something different. He was Nietzsche�s
superman, the �bermensch (Shirer 100).

Of
course, many apologists for Nietzsche argue that the criterion for
defining the �bermensch was neither racial nor hereditary. However,
Nietzsche frequently espoused eugenical concepts, suggesting that
he did invest significant value in race and hereditary. For instance,
consider the following social mandate set forth by Nietzsche:

"Society
as the trustee of life is responsible to life for every botched
life that comes into existence; and as it has to atone for such
lives, it ought consequently to make it impossible for them ever
to see the light of day: it should in many cases actually prevent
the act of procreation, and may, without any regard for rank, descent,
or intellect, hold in readiness the most rigorous forms of compulsion
and restriction, and, under certain circumstances, have recourse
to castration ... �Thou shalt do no murder,� is a piece of ingenuous
puerility compared with �Thou shalt not beget!!!� ... The [unhealthy]
must at all costs be eliminated, lest the whole fall to pieces."
(Quoted in Haller 53)

Automatically,
the astute reader will recognize the traditional themes of eugenics:
Malthusian demands for the prohibition of procreation amongst certain
populations and mandates for compulsory sterilization. Nietzsche�s
tirade is also replete with contradictions. He asserts that eugenical
regimentation should be implemented with no regard for �rank, descent,
or intellect.� Simultaneously, he insists that there is an �unhealthy�
population that �must at all costs be eliminated.� Why must this population
be eugenically expunged? Does Nietzsche fear that such �dysgenics�
would interbreed with those of healthier stock? Remember, Nietzsche�s
remarks are made in conjunction with procreation, inferring that he
believes in some connection between hereditary and the �unhealthy.�

Moreover,
Nietzsche�s bestowal of primacy upon the social �whole� betrays his
collectivist proclivities. Hitler shared such propensities, as is
evidenced by his virtual deification of the collective in Mein
Kampf: "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure
the preservation of the species" (no pagination). Sans the racialist
emphasis of this statement, these words sound distinctly reminiscent
of Marx�s characteristic collectivism. This is no coincidence. In
1933, the Fuehrer candidly admitted to Hermann Rauschning: �the whole
of National Socialism is based on Marx� (Martin 239).

The
appellation of "communism" comes from the Latin root communis,
which means "group" living. Fascism is a derivation of the Italian
word fascio, which is translated as "bundle" or "group." Both
fascism and communism are forms of coercive group living, or more
succinctly, collectivism. The only substantial difference between
the two is fascism's limited observance of private property rights,
which is ostensible at best given its susceptibility to rigid government
regulation. Nazism (a variant of fascism) is derivative of Marxism.
The historical conflicts between communism and fascism were merely
feuds between two socialist totalitarian camps, not two dichotomously
related forces. Both tangibly represent the Nietzschean concept of
the �human herd,� a societal paradigm that subordinates the individual
to the collective. Nietzschean philosophy comprises an ideational
continuum binding Hitler, Marx, and other socialist totalitarians.

It
is, indeed, paradoxical that Nietzsche harshly criticized socialism.
Yet, his ideas harmonized well with Marxism, whether disseminated
on the popular level as communism or fascism. In fact, Mussolini,
who was a former member of the Italian Communist Party, read Nietzsche
extensively. In 1938, Hitler bequeathed a copy of Nietzsche�s Collected
Works to Mussolini on the Brenner Pass (Magee 250-51). Although
socialism clearly was not the apple of Nietzsche�s eye, its inherent
collectivism synchronized very well with the doctrine of the �human
herd.�

In
addition to the continuity of political and social thought that pervaded
totalitarian socialism, Nietzsche also provided a religious component.
The infamous declaration, �God is dead,� is but a segue for the introduction
of a new god. This god has had numerous manifestations, as is evidenced
by the following delineation by W. Warren Wagar:

Nineteenth-and
early twentieth-century thought teems with time-bound emergent deities.
Scores of thinkers preached some sort of faith in what is potential
in time, in place of the traditional Christian and mystical faith
in a power outside of time. Hegel�s Weltgeist, Comte�s Humanite,
Spencer�s organismic humanity inevitably improving itself by the
laws of evolution, Nietzsche�s doctrine of superhumanity, the conception
of a finite God given currency by J.S. Mill, Hastings Rashdall,
and William James, the vitalism of Bergson and Shaw, the emergent
evolutionism of Samuel Alexander and Lloyd Morgan, the theories
of divine immanence in the liberal movement in Protestant theology,
and du Nouy�s telefinalism--all are exhibits in evidence of the
influence chiefly of evolutionary thinking, both before and after
Darwin, in Western intellectual history. The faith of progress itself--especially
the idea of progress as built into the evolutionary scheme of things--is
in every way the psychological equivalent of religion. (Wagar, 106
-07)

Nietzsche�s
Ubermensch was but one more link in this ideational chain.
The thematic continuity is a religious faith in humanity�s evolutionary
ascent towards apotheosis. This is by no means new. This doctrine
of transformism dates back nearly 6,000 years, finding its crucible
in Mesopotamia. It was the religious doctrine promulgated by the ancient
Babylonian and Egyptian Mystery cults. Masonic scholar W.L. Wilmshurst
verifies this contention: �This--the evolution of man into
superman--was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries� (Wilmshurst
47; emphasis added). It comes as little surprise that Nietzsche viewed
the gods of the Bacchic and Dionysian Mysteries so favorably. They
embodied his religious faith in humanity�s emergent deity.

Likewise,
Hitler adhered to the religion of apotheosized man. In Hitler Speaks,
Hermann Rauschning quotes Hitler as having declared: �Man is becoming
God--that is the simple fact. Man is God in the making� (qutd. in
Keith 151). In his coming kingdom of deified humanity, the Fuehrer
envisioned a caste system where the �god-man� ruled the �mass animal�
(Keith 151). This was purely derivative of Nietzsche�s racialist vision
for the future. In The Will to Power, Nietzsche declares:

�A
daring and ruler race is building itself up... The aim should be
to prepare a transvaluation of values for a particularly strong
kind of man, most highly gifted in intellect and will. This man
and the elite around him will become the �lords of the earth�� (qutd.
in Shirer 100-01).

Again,
Nietzsche is speaking about a specific race. The racialist context
is obvious and incontrovertible. Of course, Nietzsche�s prophecy would
become central to Hitler�s racialist objectives. Shirer writes:

Such
rantings from one of Germany�s most original minds must have struck
a responsive chord in Hitler�s littered mind. At any rate he appropriated
them for his own--not only the thoughts but the philosopher�s penchant
for grotesque exaggeration, and often his own words. �Lords of the
Earth� is a familiar expression in Mein Kampf. That in the
end Hitler considered himself the superman of Nietzsche�s prophecy
can not be doubted. (101)

Nietzsche�s
apologists argue that the philosopher�s anti-nationalism was irreconcilable
with Nazism�s fervent nationalist rhetoric. Indeed, Nietzsche �even
toyed with the idea of European union and world government� (Shirer
99). Yet, so did Hitler! In fact, Hitler confessed that his ostensible
nationalism was but the means to just such an end:

�I
had to encourage �national� feelings for reasons of expediency;
but I was already aware that the �nation� idea could only have a
temporary value. The day will come when even here in Germany when
what is known as �nationalism� will practically have ceased to exist.
What will take it�s place in the world will be a universal society
of masters and overlords.� (Qutd. in Keith 151)

So
much for Hitler�s nationalism. Adolf was, in actuality, an internationalist
and a globalist. What else was the Third Reich but an attempt to establish
a form of world government? Hitler was only taking Nietzsche�s philosophy
to its logical conclusion: a world oligarchy governed by a supranational
elite. Nietzsche was an elitist and his aristocracy was the �bermensch,
which represented the pinnacle of evolution. At this evolutionary
plateau, superman would �overcome� his own humanity. For both Nietzsche
and Hitler, this post-human condition represented godhood.

Inherent
in this anti-human belief are Nietzsche�s quasi-Gnostic proclivities.
Superman�s triumph over humanity reiterates the Gnostic theme of man
as a higher being fettered by a corporeal prison (i.e., the body).
Nietzsche�s own bowdlerized version of gnosis (revelatory experience)
is the �transvaluation of values� and the enthronement of self as
the final moral authority. In a Gnostic context, Nietzsche�s self-deification
is analogous to the transformation of man�s sensate being. In a Nietzschean
context, Gnosticism�s "immanentized eschaton" becomes the governance
of the �lords of the earth.�

Not
surprisingly, Hitler shared Nietzsche�s Gnostic proclivities. No doubt,
these inclinations were a natural consequence of Hitler�s attendance
at Benedictine Abby in Lambach. Adorned by the occult symbol of the
swastika, the Abby was little more than a Gnostic Mystery school.
The average German who was not interpolated into esoteric culture
was incapable of recognizing the semiotic Gnosticism that pervaded
the Abby. The Third Reich represented an attempt to �immanentize the
eschaton� and tangibly enact Nietzsche�s own quasi-Gnostic kingdom
of the �bermensch.

Finally,
one must address the anti-Semite issue. Shirer, like many scholars,
claims that Nietzsche was never an anti-Semite (99). Yet, Nietzsche
considered Christianity as inextricably linked with Judaism and derisively
called the Jews a �nation of priests.� Nietzsche�s hatred for the
so-called �priestly caste� is well-known, a historical fact evidenced
by his own writings. This is highly suspicious, to say the least.
If Nietzsche were not an anti-Semite, he certainly did very little
to prevent his work from being interpreted as such. Replete with bitter
rebukes and accusations leveled directly at the Jewish people, it
would be extremely easy for an anti-Semite to find all the justification
needed to rationalize the Holocaust.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Academia�s
love affair with Nietzsche continues and shows little sign of abating.
Yet, a reexamination of Nietzsche�s character and philosophy is long
overdue. It is time for Nietzsche enthusiasts to acknowledge the ominous
parallels between their idol and one the worst mass murderers of the
twentieth century. For some, Nietzsche shall remain a �misunderstood�
and �distorted� philosopher. For those who recognize the ideational
continuity between Nietzsche and Hitler, the man is little more than
a syphilitic proto-fascist.

Author
Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism.
He has also written articles for Paranoia Magazine, MKzine, NewsWithViews.com,
and B.I.P.E.D.: The Official Website of Darwinian Dissent and Conspiracy
Archive. He
has an Associate of Arts and Science.

Currently,
he is studying for a bachelor's degree in Communications at Wright State
University. During the course of his seven-year college career, Phillip
has studied philosophy, religion, and classic literature. He also co-authored
the book, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination
of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century, which is available
at: [Link]

Skinner
developed a �technology of behavior� by which human nature could be conditioned
and manipulated. Skinner believed that, as desirable behaviors were promulgated
within the human herd, the ideal society would eventually emerge.